You might be right about the speculation that you bolded. It will be interesting to find out if it’s accurate. More information could show that, like a lot more of his college work.

Dusty on July 27, 2007 at 8:11 PM

Yeh, think time will tell. Makes more sense than writer loser hooked up with actual profesional writer – the mismatch is grating. But if he’s posing as a rube, then … hmmm.
Remember, Missouri is the “SHOW ME” state.

What was the chance of Mr. Can’t-Write-Nobody landing ANY writing job at ANY newspaper or magazine with HIS portfolio?

[naliaka on July 27, 2007 at 7:09 PM]

I don’t know, I haven’t seen his portfolio. If I had to judge his writing skill based on his blog, I would agree with you that his skill is poor. I’m not willing to judge his ability solely on that, though.

His blog may be neither part nor representative of what his portfolio contains. Heck, he may not have one. As for TNR’s decision to pay him, maybe they didn’t put much weight on that skill as it was likely a temporary arrangement and unique arrangement which, I’d add, wasn’t regular.

You might be right about the speculation that you bolded. It will be interesting to find out if it’s accurate. More information could show that, like a lot more of his college work.

The real story here is the editorial decision making process that led The New Republic to have its own private embed in Iraq, a uniform wearing mole who went to Iraq with the apparent specific purpose of maligning the war effort.

I would say rather than maligning the war effort, the bastard went with intent of maligning the entire military. One of two things need happen NOW; either the units, troops, events and CO’s are named, thoroughly investigated, and held accountable, or ScottyBoy needs to be brought up on charges, court martialed, and sent to Kansas for a long time.

It’s been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

So, Thomas does know how to use a period and commas, and caps after all. No run-on sentences … quite a bit different than his “Diarist” style.

One thing I’ve noticed about Scott Beauchamp’s defenders is that they are very careful not to disparage the Milbloggers–Beauchamp’s strategically stupid slam on those who’ve never been to Iraq notwithstanding–whose doubt about Beauchamp’s s…

Ya’ll know how no red-necks cain’t read nuh wrate. But they shoot bucks from the truck winder and throw beer cans at dirty-faced kids scruffing around amongst pappy’s chickens.

TNR: Neopotism now a virtue…

Reeve is 2007’s Valeria Plame. Like Plame, Reeve is going to be feted as the other woman who took down the Iraq war.

Remember TNR in the aftermath of Vietnam:

The New Republic told its readers that the ouster of Lon Nol should be of no concern, since “the Cambodian people will finally be rescued from the horrors of a war that never really had any meaning.” Jeff Jacoby, 4/30/1998

Now TNR is leading the charge to begin hating the troops. I personally will not stand for this.

The magazine’s editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is “part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer.”

And by that reasoning, a hospital should hire a spouse of a surgeon to perform operations even though the spouse doesn’t seem to display any knack whatsoever for the job?

Oh! “But writing stories doesn’t kill people” …oh! Some times they DO, especially if they are constructed to incite or insult.

Wow, I completely missed this in Kurtz’ piece — and it was right up top. Does this make the marriage angle relevant? It sure does. What was merely speculated about yesterday — he was chosen primarily because he was married……

Ignore that man behind the curtain!

It could be TNR conspired with Reeve and Beauchamp to defame the military. It could be they were all conspiring separately. Then again, it might be less than either.

It could be that Reeve had a folder full of Beauchamp’s earlier work to show her superiors and an adequate case that the guy can write well. The couple of stories that were found via the Lindbergh Pilot, seemed okay and accurate from my skimming. I don’t have later work to see how he progressed through college.

Did she tell them of his blog? I don’t know. Did TNR vet Beauchamp independent of Ms Reeve? Who knows. When did Reeve mention him? I’ll guess when it became apparent he was going to Iraq. It might not have even been her idea. It might have come out when she said “Can I have next week off, because my fiancee is being deployed to Iraq and we’re getting married on Saturday.” That might be something that piqued TNR’s interest just because Reeve’s political attitude meshes with theirs and she is a professional journalist now, after all, just like they are and this “opportunity knocks” fell in their lap. It could be different from that though.

If TNR had both his portfolio and knowledge of his blog, which would they believe? How much doubt would they have and who wrote it off as ‘the way kids write on the Internet nowadays’ and it’s “not real” as anyone can see by looking at his portfolio!!!!

As I said, I’m undecided at this point.

TNR may have played those two. They might also have been played to some extent. It might be a mix. TNR’s lack of practical knowledge of the makeup of our military appears to be appallingly little. Their biases easily show through, too.

I’m leaning towards 50% bias, 30% some mix of naiveté and ignorance, 10% ‘using’* the two and 10% the two (more likely just Beauchamp) ‘using’* TNR. That last 10% is the basis for what has put TNR in mute mode. They are clinging to their view that some teensy thread of truth is there and drop down in the verification process as they teeter at the edge of the cliff.

Some things are certain. The vast majority in the military don’t act the way Beauchamp does, if Beauchamp’s apparent reduction in rank is any barometer at all. The vast majority don’t do the things he ‘recorded and partially excerpted’ in his diary and the majority would have given him, and ‘his buddies’ if he really had any, hell if he did. Some of what Beauchamp describes are, at a minimum, conduct violations that the military is rigorous in maintaining.

TNR has a problem of which there is much certainty even for them. They have attached their masthead to one of the dregs in the military, one who is shuffled to the back of it’s work or imprisonment echelon to bide out their time with them and then dumped, and are trumpeting his half-assed, half told military ’story’ as something to know without having any particular opinion about it.

I noticed in the perusing of TNR that they had another Diarist, a Princeton Diarist, who told of Princeton and the Military. Within days they another writer post his take on it at the Plank. I’m sure there are dozens upon dozens of those kinds of “stories” that are published in TNR that many others at TNR toss their opinions out on. I’m surprise they are so relcutant to do that with Beauchamp.

* “Using” is a complex subject.

All it takes is, for instance, Hugh Hewitt asking Mr Foer the abovementioned question: Who was Mr Beauchamp’s editor? Mrs Reeve?

Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:34 PM

But that doesn’t prove anything even if she was. It certainly wouldn’t prove that she encouraged the lies or even knew they were lies.

I believe many bloggers and pundits have it bass-ackwards, to quote Michelle. Beauchamp is the victim here. He put his name on the line, and risked being court-martialed … for her. He was being played by Mrs Reeve. It’s her who drove this story into fairy-tale land by telling her soon-to-be husband exactly what he had to deliver. He was Mrs Reeve’s ticket for a career at TNR.

Niko on July 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Except there’s nothing at all to support that.

The Mrs. was already working at TNR; Scott wasn’t.

By Scott’s own admission, he enlisted in the Army just so he could come home a writer, which has nothing to do with his wife. If anything, I’d say he was the one who wanted the career since he said as much repeatedly in his blog.

It’s just as possible that he was playing her (if either in the couple were playing each other).

He’s the one who wanted to be a famous writer though he’d yet to get anything serious out there, and he’s the one who wanted to use his military experience as a vehicle to jump start his career.

It’s entirely possible that he asked her for a favor and convinced her the stories were true and that she was the one who risked her career and reputation on the belief that her husband was being truthful.

There’s no reason it couldn’t have gone that way.

The truth is though, we don’t know. All we do know is that it’s extremely probable that Scott’s stories are complete fabrications, something he actively participated in, and that TNR did not verify his stories.

Even if Scott was under the spell of his new bride, he’s still guilty of defaming his fellow troops, and TNR is still guilty for allow lies like that to be published as true.

If it comes out that the Mrs. pushed her husband to lie, then it makes her guilty as well but doesn’t undo his guilt.

In the end it doesnt matter if Beauchamp wrote it or His wife read it, What ultimately matters is someone in the new Republic decieded to push this story out to the American people.

Beauchamp would have been an unknown idiot stuck someone in Iraq. Its the New Republic that made the effort to spread his smears

He’s suggesting, probably correctly, that this was all premeditated and TNR knew it. That would explain TNR’s digging in at the first accusations and their “near certainty” statements. They just didn’t anticipate that we would unravel the relationships involved and thus uncover the true motive.

Jack, shouldnt the wife have been fired then?

faraway on July 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM

Only if you believe she was acting without the knowledge of the management of TNR. I don’t.

However, I join those who urge caution against thinking this is a scandal that will put TNR under. We know that from the Jamil Hussein case that any small part of a blogger story that is overreach and is not exactly right, will be prominently corrected, trumpeted, and imbued with mystical power to justify completely ignoring the 90% of the blogger’s take that was true. I think Gracie should be sought and interviewed and some investigation follow up on Beauschamp’s employment circumstances, but I think the whole marriage/employment angle will be less sinister than some here imagine.

My recommendation is to stick to the facts: Beauchamp was a self-proclaimed liberal with aspiration to be a noted author and teacher, and who purposefully joined the Army in order to write negatively about the war, specifically to advance his writing career. Beauchamp wrote some fictional “Apocolyps Now-ish” stories as if they were real, with either indifference or wilful malignity for the troops’ honor and the U.S. mission. He has aided the enemy for selfish career and political goals. TNR published his tripe with shoddy fact-checking and deserves the same reputation for trustworthiness as TNE (The National Enquirer).

I dont want some junior staffer fired I want the big heads to roll

Whoa, hold on there. Are you saying that the troop smear was kinda ordered by someone up in the “chain of command”? Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe – junior’s trying to fast-lane their career. (Junior includes Mr Foer, too.)

If we can do what you say, excellent, but its a tough thing to do, given that conservatives are shut out of regular media to begin with, let alone a lefty mag like TNR.

All it takes is, for instance, Hugh Hewitt asking Mr Foer the abovementioned question: Who was Mr Beauchamp’s editor? Mrs Reeve?

Yes it can. It can be real and inaccurate. Decisions in life can change and not everything get’s caught up, like an original decision to get married in Oct ‘07 in MO. Then deciding to get married sooner and privately for a good reason and changing the registry to reflect a formal public reinactment later for which the reception can then be held and the honeymoon immediately taken afterwards.

That happens a lot.

Niko on July 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I wish it were that easy. I’ll bet they’re burning memos in the TNR office sinks as we speak. If we can do what you say, excellent, but its a tough thing to do, given that conservatives are shut out of regular media to begin with, let alone a lefty mag like TNR.

There is no “The New Republic” here

No the new republic should have to be held accountible for what happened. Lets not make it so easy for them that all they have to do is throw some junior staffer under the bus to sweep this under the rug.

Thats another reason why we shouldnt target zreeve. It would be far too easy for them to just cut her loose to save their skins. I dont want some junior staffer fired I want the big heads to roll

I agree with most of what you said, but let’s not forget one thing: If bloggers keep on treating this as some kind of abstract institutional problem (the Hewitt angle) then the MSM will have their fun ride pointing out all those stories published at the TNR that were true and thus imply that if 99% of TNRs stuff is correct then this story must be truthful, too. The institutional approach won’t go anywhere. Go after the actual characters that set up this fraud. Expose the exact relationships between Mr Foer, Mrs Reeve and Mr Beauchamp, and how the editing process was conducted.